These proposed new games without official licenses might be 'better games', but they certainly have zero chance of (coming anywhere near) outselling EA's corresponding offering.
As much as you, I, the average slashdot reader, or an exceptionally sophisticated sports fan might appreciate the nuances of a game with better gameplay but no licenses, Joe XBox doesn't give a fuck.
He wants MVP Baseball 2006 from EA with Curt Schilling on the cover, wearing a Boston Red Sox hat.
He wants Madden NFL 2006 with Ben Roethlisberger sporting a Steelers logo.
He wants to be able to see every team, to see the real stadiums in the game, to hear John Madden and Al Michaels.
He wants to be able to play with his favorite team, the team he's watched for most of his life.
He doesn't want to play with some fake team that doesn't mean anything to him.
Company Barred From Use of Some Pop-up Ads By BOB TEDESCHI
Published: January 5, 2004
JUST when some federal courts seemed unwilling to find fault with a controversial type of pop-up Web advertising, a federal judge in New York has called at least a temporary timeout on one version of the advertisements.
Late last month the judge, Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a preliminary injunction that bars the advertising software company WhenU.com from displaying pop-ups and other types of online advertisements for VisionDirect.com when visitors go to 1-800 Contacts.com, a competing Web site.
The decision is the latest twist in a battle between WhenU and more than a dozen companies that object to its advertising techniques. Many more companies are closely watching the fight to determine whether they, too, should sue WhenU and its closest competitor, the Claria Corporation, or simply sign up as advertisers.
Opponents of WhenU's and Claria's advertising approach compare it to hijacking customers after they have entered a store. The techniques differ from the conventional pop-up advertisements, as when the travel company Orbitz.com pays publishers to have its ads pop up on readers' screens.
With WhenU's and Claria's services, for example, Orbitz would pay to have its ads pop up with Web surfers visiting the competing site Expedia.com - as in fact happened last week when visitors arrived at Expedia.com.
In such a case, Orbitz has an opportunity to lure a prospective Expedia customer from Expedia's own site. For this to work, WhenU and Claria must have the Web surfer's complicity. Each company has distributed its software to more than 30 million Internet users. The free software helps users accomplish various tasks online, whether it be filling out address forms or checking weather forecasts.
In exchange for these free services, users agree to let a piece of software track their activity as they surf the Web. (In some cases, this software is bundled not with software from WhenU or Claria, but with free software from other companies, like the file-sharing service providers Kazaa and BearShare.) It it this tracking software that enables WhenU or Claria to display a competitors' ads when users visit various sites.
Online companies have fought WhenU and Claria in the courts for the last three years, usually claiming that their pop-up ads violate federal copyright and trademark laws by disrupting the display of the plaintiffs' Web sites and by unjustly using their trademark to sell advertising, among other complaints.
But WhenU registered several legal victories in the second half of 2003, beginning with a decision in July by a federal district court in Virginia. In that case, the court rejected the argument of U-Haul that WhenU's ads on behalf of its competitors infringed U-Haul's copyrights and trademarks.
In October, Internet retailers Overstock.com and TigerDirect.com dropped suits against WhenU. In November, Federal District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, in Detroit, denied Wells Fargo's request for a preliminary injunction in its suit against WhenU. Judge Edmunds ruled that Wells Fargo was not likely to prevail on its claims of copyright and trademark infringement.
The judge said that WhenU did not use Wells Fargo's trademark, per se, in its advertising, since the pop-ups themselves did not display those trademarks. No trial date has yet been set for the case.
Judge Batts, in New York, made a different judgment in issuing her preliminary injunction against WhenU. She noted that WhenU places the 1-800 Contacts.com Web address in an internal database that is used to trigger the display of competitors' ads. That, she wrote, violates the Lanham Act's trademark protections, because WhenU has used the trademark of 1-800 Contacts in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion. Specifically, Judge Batts wrote, consumers could be confused about the connection between
For one thing, it could hurt local revenues immensely. Say that the NYC major networks are rebroadcast on the 'net (I know this story is for Canada, but it applies anywhere). Now when Jane Q. Public in Nowhere, Texas, starts watching the networks online, the local affiliates in Nowhere TX are SCREWED out of local ad revenues. There's one big problem.
I don't understand why this is such a shock. I mean, did you really expect that it would be LEGAL to rebroadcast television over the internet without proper permission? Do you think that would be "right"?
I'm sorry to inform you that your landlord had put cheap locks on your place, and it was subsequently broken into. Because you didn't change the locks. As your insurance company we will have to deny your claim. Sorry but that's the breaks.
No, see, YOU put the locks on your place. The landlord made you put a lock on there, but you chose the lock. You decided if it was a stainless-steel master lock, or one of those crappy cord-looking bike locks that could be cut through with a pair of grade-school safety scissors. Paypal doesn't set your password, YOU DO.
In all seriousness, isn't the security of a password still sacred? I mean, you can log in to any server, anywhere, with nothing more than an absconded password; do you really expect Paypal to do more than that?
Due to the lack of details given about the fund being 'robbed', I'm going to guess that the password was compromised, as opposed to some sort of hack on paypal's servers. So... isn't it this guy's fault (at least as opposed to paypal's)? Paypal didn't do anything wrong.. sure maybe they could be a bit more helpful in trying to track down who did it, but they certainly aren't obligated to do so.
I'm sorry, but even on the sliding scale of horrible peer-to-peer sharing services, Aimster was quite shitty. You won't see me losing any sleep over this.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... what?
Nice troll, but TC has always supported C++ as well.
Redundant, are you serious? It was posted ONE MINUTE after another similar post. WTF am I supposed to do?
Not very surprising
These proposed new games without official licenses might be 'better games', but they certainly have zero chance of (coming anywhere near) outselling EA's corresponding offering.
As much as you, I, the average slashdot reader, or an exceptionally sophisticated sports fan might appreciate the nuances of a game with better gameplay but no licenses, Joe XBox doesn't give a fuck.
He wants MVP Baseball 2006 from EA with Curt Schilling on the cover, wearing a Boston Red Sox hat.
He wants Madden NFL 2006 with Ben Roethlisberger sporting a Steelers logo.
He wants to be able to see every team, to see the real stadiums in the game, to hear John Madden and Al Michaels.
He wants to be able to play with his favorite team, the team he's watched for most of his life.
He doesn't want to play with some fake team that doesn't mean anything to him.
Uh, so I can get a webmail account on a domain where there are already 20million+ usernames taken?
Great! I get to be Mike86554319234@aol.com.
I was hoping for a game that would let me recreate the beers that were thrown at Ron Artest on Friday night.
"Once properly hacked you can telnet to your TiVo and purge the keystroke logs! "
You can also call Tivo and ask them to stop recording anonymous statistics on your viewing habits.
"Which is why this (and all) tracking should be user switchable. "
Guess what! IT IS USER SWITCHABLE. Call Tivo and tell them you don't want your viewing statistics recorded, and they'll stop.
You're an idiot.
"finding spam not compliant with new law" does NOT equal "realizes new law was a bad idea".
As is the case with any patent article on slashdot, the entire readership:
* Fails to read the patent
* Over-reacts
* Over-generalizes the patent and tries to apply it to EVERYTHING else.
Go read the fucking patent.
Company Barred From Use of Some Pop-up Ads
By BOB TEDESCHI
Published: January 5, 2004
JUST when some federal courts seemed unwilling to find fault with a controversial type of pop-up Web advertising, a federal judge in New York has called at least a temporary timeout on one version of the advertisements.
Late last month the judge, Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a preliminary injunction that bars the advertising software company WhenU.com from displaying pop-ups and other types of online advertisements for VisionDirect.com when visitors go to 1-800 Contacts.com, a competing Web site.
The decision is the latest twist in a battle between WhenU and more than a dozen companies that object to its advertising techniques. Many more companies are closely watching the fight to determine whether they, too, should sue WhenU and its closest competitor, the Claria Corporation, or simply sign up as advertisers.
Opponents of WhenU's and Claria's advertising approach compare it to hijacking customers after they have entered a store. The techniques differ from the conventional pop-up advertisements, as when the travel company Orbitz.com pays publishers to have its ads pop up on readers' screens.
With WhenU's and Claria's services, for example, Orbitz would pay to have its ads pop up with Web surfers visiting the competing site Expedia.com - as in fact happened last week when visitors arrived at Expedia.com.
In such a case, Orbitz has an opportunity to lure a prospective Expedia customer from Expedia's own site. For this to work, WhenU and Claria must have the Web surfer's complicity. Each company has distributed its software to more than 30 million Internet users. The free software helps users accomplish various tasks online, whether it be filling out address forms or checking weather forecasts.
In exchange for these free services, users agree to let a piece of software track their activity as they surf the Web. (In some cases, this software is bundled not with software from WhenU or Claria, but with free software from other companies, like the file-sharing service providers Kazaa and BearShare.) It it this tracking software that enables WhenU or Claria to display a competitors' ads when users visit various sites.
Online companies have fought WhenU and Claria in the courts for the last three years, usually claiming that their pop-up ads violate federal copyright and trademark laws by disrupting the display of the plaintiffs' Web sites and by unjustly using their trademark to sell advertising, among other complaints.
But WhenU registered several legal victories in the second half of 2003, beginning with a decision in July by a federal district court in Virginia. In that case, the court rejected the argument of U-Haul that WhenU's ads on behalf of its competitors infringed U-Haul's copyrights and trademarks.
In October, Internet retailers Overstock.com and TigerDirect.com dropped suits against WhenU. In November, Federal District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, in Detroit, denied Wells Fargo's request for a preliminary injunction in its suit against WhenU. Judge Edmunds ruled that Wells Fargo was not likely to prevail on its claims of copyright and trademark infringement.
The judge said that WhenU did not use Wells Fargo's trademark, per se, in its advertising, since the pop-ups themselves did not display those trademarks. No trial date has yet been set for the case.
Judge Batts, in New York, made a different judgment in issuing her preliminary injunction against WhenU. She noted that WhenU places the 1-800 Contacts.com Web address in an internal database that is used to trigger the display of competitors' ads. That, she wrote, violates the Lanham Act's trademark protections, because WhenU has used the trademark of 1-800 Contacts in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion. Specifically, Judge Batts wrote, consumers could be confused about the connection between
unpaid co-ops are perfectly fine at RIT. I have a friend who is doing one right now.
BBC paid tivo, and tivo placed it on there. It was NOT spam. The wording in this article is HORRIBLE.
===|:(->-<
(sad cat-in-the-hat)
note: this comment was supposed to be a reply to the comment beneath my original, refuting my original point.
For one thing, it could hurt local revenues immensely. Say that the NYC major networks are rebroadcast on the 'net (I know this story is for Canada, but it applies anywhere). Now when Jane Q. Public in Nowhere, Texas, starts watching the networks online, the local affiliates in Nowhere TX are SCREWED out of local ad revenues. There's one big problem.
I don't understand why this is such a shock. I mean, did you really expect that it would be LEGAL to rebroadcast television over the internet without proper permission? Do you think that would be "right"?
I'm NEVER buying a CPU from DeBeers' ever again.
I agree mostly, as long as you don't include a guessed password under 'brute-force'.
No, see, YOU put the locks on your place. The landlord made you put a lock on there, but you chose the lock. You decided if it was a stainless-steel master lock, or one of those crappy cord-looking bike locks that could be cut through with a pair of grade-school safety scissors. Paypal doesn't set your password, YOU DO.
In all seriousness, isn't the security of a password still sacred? I mean, you can log in to any server, anywhere, with nothing more than an absconded password; do you really expect Paypal to do more than that?
Due to the lack of details given about the fund being 'robbed', I'm going to guess that the password was compromised, as opposed to some sort of hack on paypal's servers. So... isn't it this guy's fault (at least as opposed to paypal's)? Paypal didn't do anything wrong.. sure maybe they could be a bit more helpful in trying to track down who did it, but they certainly aren't obligated to do so.
I'm sorry, but even on the sliding scale of horrible peer-to-peer sharing services, Aimster was quite shitty. You won't see me losing any sleep over this.
it's up up down down left right left right b a start
PC Compatible? Finally... where can I sign up?